3 ms·

The conversation on nuclear power has never been a rational one. This has some interesting effects. Because it's so hard to get funding on anything, not that m

The conversation on nuclear power has never been a rational one. This has some interesting effects. Because it's so hard to get funding on anything, not that much research has been done on how to decontaminate radioactive waste. You might disagree about doing it in the first place, but still support research to clean up. Because it's so hard to get permission to build new reactors, older reactors were used for longer. But we've learned a lot about safety and fail-safes since the 80s. There's a very shabby strip club directly outside Amazon's meeting centre in Seattle for a similar reason. I'm told the owner wouldn't mind renovating or moving, but zoning laws make those difficult. So because the policy making is driven by morality and not rationality, you end up with weird (side)effects.

sailfast 8y ago
Are you sure it's not there because it is finding high net worth clients across the street? As for nuclear power and research on cleanup - it appears this industry will be worth a lot of money post Fukushima which does appear to be spurring the requisite R&D, which should be good news for this kind of tech. Granted, probably not what is required to really make this decontamination jump to the level that it becomes "easy" but at least it is something better than "Oh sure eventually we'll put them on a train and stick them in the ground, you know, as long as the earth doesn't destroy those plans first with an earthquake, hurricane, etc"
lispm 8y ago
> The conversation on nuclear power has never been a rational one Like in Japan. Full support for nuclear from government and industry. Society not interested and not opposed. The mechanism at play were then 'greed', 'corruption' and no sufficient safety culture. And this is not surprise: the so-called Japanese 'nuclear village' was well known. There was nothing 'rational' about NOT increasing tsunami safety at Fukushima. It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political decision. No energy politics is rational. It's also not possible to be rational. There are vast commercial and other interests involved. > Because it's so hard to get permission to build new reactors, older reactors were used for longer Because it was much easier and cost effective, older reactor lifetimes were extended. We are talking about billions of investments. > But we've learned a lot about safety and fail-safes since the 80s Which then has priced nuclear out of the market - if there is a market - France for example has only a very limited electricity market - EDF is government owned. https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/finance/financial-information/the-edf-share/shareholding-structure https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/finan... Areva/Orena is government owned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano
- guitarbill 8y ago
  > It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political decision. Wait, what? How else are rational decisions made? Fukushima was commissioned in 1970s, and was negligent. As were DuPont's actions with PFOA, the Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon. Nuclear is not special in that regard, it's just an easier target for fear-mongering. Look, I'd be happy if all (non-medial) nuclear reactors were replaced by renewables and turned off. But compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power is not the worst idea humans have had.
  - lispm 8y ago
    >> It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political decision. > Wait, what? How else are rational decisions made? For example by actually dealing with underlying bias - which the (nuclear) industry does not. Example: if the profitability of a company is at stake, then costly decisions are out of scope. But 'rational decisions' probably don't exist and there is no method which can be applied to complex situations often found in energy politics. If somebody claims to know how to make 'rational decisions', then this would be a sign to me that this person does not understand its problems and limitations. > and was negligent there is nothing rational about 'negligent'
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
Amazon execs make a lot of money, maybe there are other reasons the strip club is still there
7952 8y ago
Of course you are going to use your expensive asset to generate income for as long as possible. But new investment has to be compared to other opportunities in the market, and government sets the market.

sailfast 8y ago

Are you sure it's not there because it is finding high net worth clients across the street? As for nuclear power and research on cleanup - it appears this industry will be worth a lot of money post Fukushima which does appear to be spurring the requisite R&D, which should be good news for this kind of tech. Granted, probably not what is required to really make this decontamination jump to the level that it becomes "easy" but at least it is something better than "Oh sure eventually we'll put them on a train and stick them in the ground, you know, as long as the earth doesn't destroy those plans first with an earthquake, hurricane, etc"

lispm 8y ago

> The conversation on nuclear power has never been a rational one Like in Japan. Full support for nuclear from government and industry. Society not interested and not opposed. The mechanism at play were then 'greed', 'corruption' and no sufficient safety culture. And this is not surprise: the so-called Japanese 'nuclear village' was well known. There was nothing 'rational' about NOT increasing tsunami safety at Fukushima. It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political decision. No energy politics is rational. It's also not possible to be rational. There are vast commercial and other interests involved. > Because it's so hard to get permission to build new reactors, older reactors were used for longer Because it was much easier and cost effective, older reactor lifetimes were extended. We are talking about billions of investments. > But we've learned a lot about safety and fail-safes since the 80s Which then has priced nuclear out of the market - if there is a market - France for example has only a very limited electricity market - EDF is government owned. https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/finance/financial-information/the-edf-share/shareholding-structure https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/finan... Areva/Orena is government owned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano

guitarbill 8y ago
> It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political decision. Wait, what? How else are rational decisions made? Fukushima was commissioned in 1970s, and was negligent. As were DuPont's actions with PFOA, the Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon. Nuclear is not special in that regard, it's just an easier target for fear-mongering. Look, I'd be happy if all (non-medial) nuclear reactors were replaced by renewables and turned off. But compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power is not the worst idea humans have had.
- lispm 8y ago
  >> It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political decision. > Wait, what? How else are rational decisions made? For example by actually dealing with underlying bias - which the (nuclear) industry does not. Example: if the profitability of a company is at stake, then costly decisions are out of scope. But 'rational decisions' probably don't exist and there is no method which can be applied to complex situations often found in energy politics. If somebody claims to know how to make 'rational decisions', then this would be a sign to me that this person does not understand its problems and limitations. > and was negligent there is nothing rational about 'negligent'

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

Amazon execs make a lot of money, maybe there are other reasons the strip club is still there

7952 8y ago

Of course you are going to use your expensive asset to generate income for as long as possible. But new investment has to be compared to other opportunities in the market, and government sets the market.